Commonwealth v. Dearborn
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Burkett v. Ulmer (Me. 1940)
- State Ex Rel. Jones v. Carradine (La. Ct. App. 1928)
- Haupt v. Rogers (Mass. 1898)
- Attorney General v. Drohan (Mass. 1897)
- Attorney General v. Sullivan (Mass. 1895)
- Kilauea Sugar Co. v. Macfie (Haw. 1883)
- State ex rel. Woodford v. North (Conn. 1875)
- Reed v. Cumberland & Oxford Canal Corp. (Me. 1874)
- People ex rel. McConville v. Hills (New York Supreme Court 1869)
- Smith v. State (Ark. 1860)
- Goddard v. Smithett (Mass. 1854)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
were of opinion that the prerogative of the government did not authorize the mode of pleading attempted, and the demurrer was withdrawn.
The issue in fact was joined by the defendants, and being tried
The counsel on both sides being present at the following Novem ber term in Essex, the question whether the information lay was argued at much length by them ; and it was afterwards determined by the Court, that the defendants, as managers of a lottery granted to a corporation, and appointed to the trust by the corpotation, were not such * officers as were liable to the process which had been instituted in this case. They were the private officers or servants of the corporation, and removable by it at pleasure, or at least for good cause. The only effect of a judgment against the defendants upon this information would be their removal from office. But such a judgment would be nugatory, for the corporation might immediately reinstate them. Those against whom such an information lies must claim to exercise some public office or authority. The defendants were accordingly discharged.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.